• Interesting...that's all I have to say.

    June 18, 2010 at 5:28 p.m.
  • I guess this guy was a desperation hire like just about every COV employee is these days.

    June 18, 2010 at 12:52 p.m.
  • Gee, that's a wide variety of lawyering for nine short years, isn't it?

    June 17, 2010 at 9:25 p.m.
  • "I principally represent public school districts across the state in compliance matters related to governance, employment of personnel, student discipline, and special education. I am a frequent public speaker at statewide conventions and regional conferences on topics related to public school law, and I am often requested to present district in-service training to faculty, administration, and board members.

    I also represent a variety of business clients in compliance and transactional matters, including corporate startups and business mergers. I have represented clients in diverse businesses, including the creation of a mobile respiratory therapy testing lab, the startup of an Internet-based online social networking service, the formation of a limited liability holding company, the opening of a series of boutique wine franchises, and the defense of an automobile dealership. I have experience handling organizational matters for sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, and both Texas and Delaware corporations.

    I've been practicing law since 2001, when, after teaching high-school English in the Texas public school system for eight years, I graduated from the University of Houston School of Law. I began my practice in the Houston office of the New York-based firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, where I focused on transactional corporate law within the energy and insurance sectors.

    Within the energy sector, I represented corporate clients in regulatory matters, including representation of a Fortune 100 company before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I also represented international energy companies in asset-purchase agreements, including the purchase of a major energy production facility.

    Within the insurance sector, I represented international insurance and reinsurance groups in regulatory matters, including the filing of forms required by state insurance agencies with respect to mergers and acquisitions. I also edited and contributed to a monthly newsletter which detailed developments in insurance law across the country.

    I provided representation on other business transactional matters while in Houston, including the $20 million acquisition of a Texas manufacturing company."

    June 17, 2010 at 4:07 p.m.
  • Victoria Advocate, 9/14/2009:
    "Gwosdz said he has no legal experience in the municipal law field, but he has represented school districts for the past seven years. He said some are in the region, but declined to name them."

    June 17, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.
  • Where did the city dig up this Gwosdz guy at anyway?
    He appears pretty amateurish.

    June 17, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
  • "Gwosdz would not reveal the cost of the law firm's investigation, citing attorney-client privilege."

    No, legal fees for consultants are a matter of public record, and are not attorney-client privilege. Gwosdz must have been absent from law school that day.

    June 16, 2010 at 9:27 p.m.
  • i guess i'll have to take your word for it.

    June 16, 2010 at 8:56 p.m.
  • holein1,

    I appreciate your interest in my exploits. You'll have to be satisfied with a simple affirmative that I put my feet on the ground to address such issues, in one way or another.

    June 16, 2010 at 6:35 p.m.
  • i am aware of the definition of derogatory, and now you are too. Thanks.

    our opinions differ as to whether or not what was said is derogatory, and that's ok. you see it's not our opinions that matter in this case.

    i think i asked you before if you had filed a complaint with the Texas Rangers or Texas Legislature. have you?

    i ask because i see you as a town crier of sorts. you blog about what you consider injustices, mismanagement, misappropriations, etc. but not once have i seen you say that you've actually done something personally about it.

    if i am wrong, please prove me wrong. show me where you have stood up for those being taken advantage of, and i mean something meaningful, not postings throughout the blogosphere.

    June 16, 2010 at 5:34 p.m.
  • holein1,

    derogatory (according to Merriam-Webster)
    1: detracting from the character or standing of something
    2: expressive of a low opinion

    The Mayor's remarks drew on associations based mostly on city business/issues to accuse Williams of conspiracy to wrongfully influence an election. (How ironic!) It wasn't his citing of the facts that was derogatory -- it was his conclusion. If you can't see how his comments detracted from Williams' character or standing, there's nothing more I can say.

    As far as city employees he may have influenced, take your pick between the ones at the council meeting and the ones viewing at home.

    June 16, 2010 at 3:24 p.m.
  • holein1, it's clear Armstrong wasn't trying to just sway city employees to vote one way or the other. He said it at a televised council meeting. Anyone tuning into channel 15 may have been swayed by his allegations.

    Personally I could care less if a judge found him guilty of violating the charter or not. What I have a problem with is the way this was handled. Checks and balances works, but not when the same entity (the city) is doing its own checking and balancing. Gwosdz must have been asleep the day they covered conflict of interest in law school. Actually there's a few city officials that could stand to read up on that.

    June 16, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.
  • Citizens, grab your umbrellas...another p***ing contest.

    June 16, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.
  • ok, my mistake.

    explain to me how his comments were derogatory or were used to influence city employees to vote one way or another.

    June 16, 2010 at 1:34 p.m.
  • holein1, he didn't say Williams and Wayne were having a "strategy session". He cited a meeting at a citizen's home (sans Wayne) regarding a separate issue, a city-business-related meeting between Soliz & Wayne, and a donation from Wayne to Williams as evidence of collusion between Williams, Wayne and Soliz. It was an accusation that could have been made off camera, but he chose to delivery his speculative snipe on camera days before an election. His intent was clear.

    June 16, 2010 at 1:29 p.m.
  • wow...that's some serious keyboard smashing going on there.

    i agree with EX. the reoccurring theme on this blog is complain but offer no other solution.

    i don't like armstrong. personally, i think he's a blow-hard, egotistical, megalomaniac, idgit.

    also, i don't think he violated the charter. i stated this before in a previous blog. saying that he believes williams and wayne were having a strategy session is neither derogatory nor could you consider it influence on other council members to vote one way or another. in poor taste? oh yeah, but that's his MO.

    perhaps this will spur the community to charge the current council with rewriting the charter, it's outdated after all. it was written over 50 years ago.

    June 16, 2010 at 1:09 p.m.
  • TXEX
    “Negative venom “Who are you kidding.
    It appears, you condone the behavior of the self-serving city officials of subject.
    I love an Honest official with Integrity and Ethics that reflects a thriving growing city, or more superior reflecting a compassion for his or her constituents which is the Whole City of Victoria.
    I it is my opinion, you don’t have a clue about honesty and integrity.
    To top it off, I love city government. I don’t like ban wagon riders who condones corruption and dishonesty. Why don’t you try embracing a little integrity and compassion?
    I understand to much will choke you. Eat on it , choke on it and move on.

    June 16, 2010 at 11:59 a.m.
  • afnam--

    Sounds like you have all the answers.
    I stated my opinion. You have yours, I have mine. I would suggest you show up at city council and spew your negative venom at the full council who appeared to go along with all of this.
    Better yet, sue the city. Yes, you. Sue the city. Get a judge's determination. And when that judge rules against your idea of how it should go, then what is your recourse?
    You don't appear to like city government as it is now, so suggest a solution to them.
    The majority of those who voted placed these people in office. You seem to think the same 12 people who agree with you on the blogs speak for those voters WHO placed these individuals in office.

    June 16, 2010 at 10:58 a.m.
  • TXEX
    How did you come to the conclusion that a determination was made? Maybe, because a group of attorneys was called in to say no violation was committed, and you believe or go along with whatever you hear.
    The article states that legal experts ruled this decision. I am willing to bet that the City clique ruled the experts to rule this OPINION.
    I believe Judges rule, not attorneys.

    June 16, 2010 at 10:40 a.m.
  • TxEx, there were 61 swing votes in that election. I'd say Jeff Williams has ample standing.

    June 16, 2010 at 10:14 a.m.
  • Storyteller,

    The Mayor is the client. The City Attorney's job is to defend the City (even from the citizens), not to defend the citizens from the City, and he hired the firm to do the job he couldn't do due to the conflict with his official role. Read my blog to understand why this arrangement didn't eliminate the conflict, it only masked it.

    June 16, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.
  • My take:

    June 16, 2010 at 10:01 a.m.
  • I'm a bit confused. On whose behalf did the City Attorney hire the consultant? The city's?
    Who is paying the bill? The city?
    Who is the client? The city?
    What's all this about attorney client privilege?
    Are we not the client?

    June 16, 2010 at 9:47 a.m.
  • So the determination has been made. Let's move on.

    My opinion on the Mayor's comment influencing the election between Williams and Halepaska: Zero.

    Jeff Williams lost. He's bitter about it. Move on Jeff. Same advice for Henry Perez. Your recall of Rangel bombed and now Perez is advocating the removal of Armstrong. Perez is bitter too about losing.

    Armstrong is the mayor. He was re-elected. Is he an easy person to get along with? No. Does he have the best interest of Victoria? I believe he does. Armstrong and the council as well as city staff do a good job.

    Final point: Williams and Perez. Get over it. Run again when terms come up. Maybe the political climate will be more in your favor when that time comes around.

    June 16, 2010 at 9:04 a.m.
  • Since when are attorney fees apart of the attorney client priviledge?? A quick look on the internet shows that the discussions are priviledged but not what the city paid to get the advise.

    Secondly this is public money and we have a right to know how much the mayor costs us this time.

    June 16, 2010 at 8:59 a.m.
  • Keep your eye on the elephant! What's the property value issue Homer Hill and Williams were discussing? Homer's home value went down and so did his taxes. The taxes of all of his neighborhood stayed the same or decreased this year.

    This city charter article is really great. Election scenario: one cop sees a political candidate robbing a store and says to another, let's arrest that crook! If this is during an election, then the cop, according to the charter, would pay a $500 fine and lose his job. In the meantime, the crook candidate's case would be dismissed by the DA. If it isn't during an election, then no fine and no firing. (However the case would still be dismissed by the DA.) What a great system of law we have in place in Victoria.

    This charter section wasn't part of the so-called charter reforms that were defeated last year. Keep your eye on the elephant!

    June 16, 2010 at 8:28 a.m.
  • The wild, wild west is alive and well in Victoriatown. A bunch of outlaws with no sheriff or posse in sight. No wonder the gangs strive in this town. I also wonder if there is a kick-back policy written somewhere in the town charter that is not made public.

    June 16, 2010 at 8:25 a.m.
  • Okay, so if I understand all the 'opinions' about this matter, the restriction of city employees and elected officials from campaigning for city political candidates is essentially non-existent because there is no provision to enforce it?

    We can now expect to see City folks campaigning heartily for their candidate, right? Well, why not? At least it would be out in the open...

    June 16, 2010 at 7:03 a.m.
  • So...Just how did the mayor get voted in?

    June 16, 2010 at 6:22 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    June 16, 2010 at 6:15 a.m.
  • Wow the "Good Ole Boy Club" is alive and doing well in this "cough, cough" fair city.

    June 16, 2010 at 4:33 a.m.
  • Wasn't there an effort to update the city charter last effort that was opposed by our illustrious mayor and the city manager? This effort led the former city attorney to flee a higher paying position...and Mayor Armstrong and the majority of the Council bemoaned that they would never be able to find a qualified person to fill that position. Well...looks like they were right about that.

    We need new leadership in Victoria...including the city manager.

    June 16, 2010 at 4:23 a.m.
  • "Williams said the only truths Armstrong said during his questionable comments was there was a meeting and that James Wayne contributed to Williams' campaign."

    Mr. Armstrong also said "...and you discussed matters that I'm not privileged to..." and "I suspect that this is some type of a strategy to affect this election."

    Both of those statements are also true. Or does Mr. Williams think Mayor Armstrong was privileged to the matters discussed and that Mr. Williams knows what the Mayor suspects and does not suspect?

    June 16, 2010 at 12:42 a.m.
  • Nice to know the city charter has no teeth, It's anything goes!

    June 16, 2010 at 12:15 a.m.
  • So the city attorney payed for some lawers from out of town to tell him the mayor didn't do anything wrong! WOW!!! Am i the only one that sees a problem here? Good job Slick Willie! You covered it up. We have a great mayor. He talks bad about people, laughs at others, and spends our money on stuff we dont need. Oh wait i forgot it the rich people in town that need him as mayor. They needed a lap dog! This city needs to get rid of Slick, the lap dogs, and the two in the city managers office!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    June 15, 2010 at 11:06 p.m.